tv [untitled] November 23, 2010 11:30pm-12:00am PST
goes through this, if i may, through the president for the members who support it, if we go through this process and take a look at what we can do with six votes and leave out what we cannot do because we do not have the required eight votes to amend the board rules, then we have basically a verbal agreement, although not an amendment to the rules of order, and that in this process, we will do our best while we have our ability to handle procedural motions to adhere to the spirit of what the six of us agree to.
so in the case of this one nomination at a time or multiple nominations, obviously we would not be able to prevent other members of the board from making nominations. but i would think that we would not try to make a second nomination if we had made a second one, and we would not accept ourselves as nominees, and in that way, we can move forward. we have members to what to see the work to get done, and we have members who want to do subterfuge. that is fine. that is part of the politics. but with six votes, and six members, we can do this, and i think it responds to supervisor
campos' question about six members of the board affecting an appointment for the office of mayor in san francisco when it becomes vacant, and we can do that. we do not do the kind of violation things they seem to do in 1978. we are left with discussing it. i think that is a better way of doing it, and we can do it, but we do not want to fall into a trap and the subterfuge to hamper the ability to make a decision. is that filibuster long enough? president chiu: she is almost
done. madam clerk: supervisor daly, through the chair, the next item is on page two. nominations do not require a second, according to roberts rules of order. supervisor daly: ok. madam clerk: and on item 3, if a nomination does not have three votes, that nomination is automatically withdrawn. supervisor daly: ok. madam clerk: and if i could just ask the outside counsel if there is anything that i might have
missed that you might have in your review? the intention is that we would hold true with all of the roberts rules of order recommendations. >> parliamentary matters generally require a majority vote, not six votes. this would require the committee as a whole. it looks like a journey and reconvening -- and turning -- adjourneing and reconvening.
supervisor daly: that is the big one. i would prefer, the item as close as it is in front of us, i think the alternative that supervisor elsbernd has moved, but i am not sure that would not prefer nothing. to that. and that is where i am on this question, colleagues. president chiu: supervisor campos? supervisor campos: what language specifically are they referring to? >> with regard to the six-vote threshold? supervisor campos: what page? what line? >> page two, a nominee receives
at least six votes until the underlying items are continued tabled or filed by at least six votes of the board. those would generally be procedural motions that would normally require a majority vote for those present rather than six. that is on page two under nomination procedures, item three. the last sentence under item 3 refers to the continuing or tabling of an item by six votes rather than a majority vote of those present. supervisor daly: so that would
be my motion, a motion to amend supervisor elsbernd's motion. president chiu: so it is my understanding that supervisor daly wants to keep intact those that do not require that. i think there are four, that nominations be made one at a time -- supervisor daly: point of order, could you go line by line? supervisor elsbernd: -- president chiu: and the clerk has a better one. madam clerk: the third line down, the president will then open the floor for a nomination. once the board received a nomination, the board shall only
consider one nomination at a time, and robert's rules, if denomination does not receive six votes, that nomination is automatically withdrawn. supervisor daly: you are saying we will revert to your language? madam clerk: that is correct. supervisor daly: could you read what that would be? madam clerk: there will be a nomination from each board member. they will bring this back to the board members for nomination. supervisor daly, is that
correct? president chiu: madam clerk, do you want to go to the next item? madam clerk: supervisor daly on page one has scratched out item three, which allows for it on the floor in any time. scrunching up the language then will allow for -- president chuiuiu: you are sayig it is fine? supervisor daly: i deleted it. if it is in robert's rules, it will speak. president chiu: i think that makes sense. it can remain.
madam clerk: through the chair, page two, nomination procedures, nominations require a second. number one, supervisor elsbernd, the nominations do not require a second. president chiu: so we will revert back to the original language? madam clerk: where a second is not necessary. president chiu: next? : madam clerk: if a motion is made and there is a second. supervisor daly has added language, until the underlying items are continued or tabled.
the original language indicates the nomination process will continue until board members stop making nominations. president chiu: ok, for that, we will revert back to the original language and klerk's proposed process. continuing on. -- and the clerk's proposed process. madam clerk: page 3, supervisor daly has added a part about it being automatically withdrawn and the floor is open for another nomination. robert's rules of orders does not state that nominations are automatically withdrawn. a member can decide if they chose to to withdraw their nomination.
not knowing what we are voting on? i am not feeling good about this process at this point. president chiu: one thing that i can propose, colleagues, is that we take a quick 10 to 15 minute break that incorporates supervisor daly's amendments that do not involve changing robert's rules, unless anyone has some other suggestions? supervisor daly: this may be the first time today the i agree with supervisor -- that i agree with supervisor elsbernd. i do not think any of us thought through what type of swiss cheese process we were making, and i would ask through the chair that the board of
supervisors who are holding up this process for two of you to reconsider. i think we have a process which i think is clean. it is far superior to this other process, which is, honestly, exercising almost a never used board rule, 5.22, to come up with something that speaks to the committee as a whole, which is not even a standing committee of the board of supervisors, i think that we have a real process problems anyway, unless eight members of this board want to cooperate, but if eight members of this board do not want to cooperate, if a minority of the board wanted to hold it up and make a swiss cheese process or no process or bad process, you are going to be able to do that, but the
decision to be made or not made is not going to be the best decision for san francisco. it may work for you and your political camp, but it is not going to be good for the city. president chiu: colleagues, any further discussion? supervisor alioto-pier? supervisor alioto-pier: i think at some time, we have to take a step back. the new board will vote on this, not us, so i do think we have to bear all of that in consideration. i think we have something that is clear in front of us. supervisor elsbernd, a point he made earlier, and i think if we move forward, we will ultimately end up doing what is best for san francisco, but we need to start making tough decisions, and we need to start moving on, and the parliamentary tricks and games are not going to get us
anywhere. supervisor chiu: supervisor maxwell? supervisor maxwell: i think this is a swiss cheese, but i would rather go with robert's rules of order and the board rules rather than doing things on the fly, so i hope we would consider doing this, and let's move on, and let's move forward. supervisor chiu: supervisor daly? supervisor daly: i think this supervisor maxwell is talking about when i mentioned one week ago, so i am good that -- glad that the education has gotten to her. i do not think she will vote that way, but i am glad. president chiu: supervisor avalos? supervisor avalos: i know there
is a camp that is worried about having too many choices, but i also think it is important that we let the votes decide, and we have the ability to do i do not have a course in this race. i do not think there is anyone at this point -- i do not have a horse in this race. i do not think that there is anyone at this point who has six votes to get elected. i would like to think that we would have the most ample choices that could be possible. i do not know whether we will actually have a member of this board who will be in that office. it is not a concern of mine. i can think of scenarios where that will happen, but i can also think of other scenarios that i could support, which is that we get to a vote that can get the six that, again, jimmy would
prevent a situation where we have the president of the board serving as acting mayor. to me, that is not the best choice to move forward with, and we need to find a choice that works. we need to have ample choices for 11 people to come to six votes, and i think that limiting that is not in the spirit of working together for us to find a resolution. suppan -- president chiu: supervisor maxwell? supervisor maxwell: i just want to make it clear. it is what the clerks supported. -- clerk supported. i take upon myself. -- i take that upon myself. president chiu: supervisor daly?
supervisor daly: this is not the only way to put together a process that relies on the board rules and robert's rules. one way is to not read a new process, which is what i thought we should have done last week, because i said as soon as we have gone down this path, we will get into this debate, and we are going to disagree on the issues, and people who know procedure are going to be able to hold up the ideas, and we are going to get to the point where we get into the evening, and we are still not going to have had the discussion of the mayor's qualities and attributes the real looking for in a success of mayer, and through the chair, supervisor note -- looking for another major -- mayaor, and
through the chair, a supervisor -- through the chair, supervisosr alitoto-pier, we are not going to have a successive -- successor mayor, and the next board will be stuck with it, and i think it will be a disaster. if we want to make an appointment, i would strongly encourage supervisor alioto-pier for you to reconsider. it is not like you can change the outcome, but if you have fewer members voting, you are less likely to get to six than if you have a greater number of
members voting, in the process that is currently in front of us, which we cannot get a devotes four, allows for a greater number of members to vote -- which we can not get caught -- 8 votes for. president chiu: colleagues, there is obviously not consensus for the eighth vote threshold, but there may be consensus for the sixth vote threshold, excuse me, for the six -- to take out the provisions that do not do that. why do why not propose that we recess? the clerk thinks it would take at least half an hour or perhaps longer to come up with a draft to have in front of us before we vote, so why do we not propose to recess for a least half an hour, and we will contact all of
change to robert's rule of order. we have that in front of us. why don't i ask madam clerk if you could summarize again the amendment that we have right now. >> thank you. this item before you is called amended exhibit a we handed copies to the public so they could follow along. on page one of three under section b. the language reverted back to the president will open the hearing to receive comments from board members and then public comment. once public comment is heard, the the president will have nominations and september up to one from each board member. we clair fired that that it -- that it would be received up to one from each board member. once it is receiversed the president will bring it back to vote on the nomination which is will be voted upon agains in --
in the process as written above. in the order received, i ask it be struck from this document. once a nominee is select the president will adjourn and recon vene as the full board to consider the motion to appoint success err mayor. this section c we have clarified number three a nominee does not have to accept a nomination and can withdraw his or her name for consideration without a second if a nominee withdraws the nomination, the nominations may be opened. we add bid motions seconded and majority as written in roberts rules. also on page one -- page two
that reverted back as follows, items one, two, three and nominations shall be made from the floor and could be made up until the time the board members are ready to vote such as the custom a roster will facilitate the nomination. item two, second for a nomination is not necessary. item three, the process continues until the board members stop making nominations. he or she must be sequestered until their nomination is completed. the rest of the paragraph has to do with the sequestering of the p.r.a. it should not be in this dock canment. are you -- are you fine if we remove that from this paragraph as that was your request to move
all of the pmplet r.a. items from here. all of the p.r.a. items from here. >> i'm not sure what your question is. >> on page two item three -- >> under principles or procedures? >> under principles. >> which paragraph? >> item three. pending nomination procedures, supervisor daly. toward the end during the period the communication between the sequestered board members and the chamber may not take place. you requested we remove all of the items that require an eight-vote threshold as well as those that apply to the political reform act. >> that's not what i requested
at all. you were working off your document, not mine. all i requested was the file in front of us could be stripped of anything that would require the threshold and you're coming at it from the document that has already been amended and saying that i asked to remove something from that, which i don't believe to be accurate. just because we're coming at it from different directions. we took your document, vfer daly and reviewed the items that -- that were outside of roberts rules, that your document had it and put those roberts rules back inside of the document. as well as removing items that